Classic Study ( Watson + Rayner)

    Cards (11)

    • Aim (W+R)?
      To investigate if they could classically condition fear into a child towards an animal by pairing it with a loud noise.
    • Procedure (W+R)?
      In a lab little Albert was presented with the white rat and when he touched it a bar was struck loudly behind his head. He was exposed to building blocks as a control and then was tested at the theatre. The final test included a variety of objects stuff as a rabbit fur and a Santa mask
    • Results (W+R)?
      little Albert at first only responded to the loud noise but was later cautious of the rat and after further conditioning began to cry and crawl away from the rat. In session 3 this fear was generalised to white furry objects and in later sessions his reactions became less extreme in a different environment over time
    • In conclusion conditioning a phobia response is simple as it only took 2 sessions. Stimulus generalisation also occurred as little Albert showed a fear response to similar looking white furry objects.
    • In depth procedure Little Albert
      • Sample little Albert 9minth old raised in hospital environment
      • Paired loud noise with rat as IV While DV was how much little Albert cried
      • Session 1 - Bar struck loudly whenever albert reached for white rat
      • Session 2 - a week later little Albert was exposed to the pairing of the rat and the noise 5 more times and building blocks were used as a control which he showed no fear towards
      • Session 3 - tested with other objects such as wooden rabbit, a dog and cotton wool
      • Session 4 - after 5 days taken to new environment
      • Session 5 - final test a month later included a variety of different objects such as a Santa Claus mask , fur coat and rabbit
    • Results for little Albert
      Session 1 - there was a response to the loud noise. Session 2 - more cautious towards the white rat and would no longer reach out for the rat.
      Session 3 - fear was generalised to white furry objects with mild fear towards the dog but not much else (stimulus generalisation)
      Session 4 and 5 - fear towards white furry objects remained the same but became less extreme in a different environment over time.
    • Weakness 1 of little Albert
      Sample is restricted as the conditioning process was only done on a 9 month old boy so the findings aren’t representative of how phobias develop if you’re not a young boy. This means the results can’t be generalised to how phobias are created in females and older people.
    • Strength 1 of Little Albert (W+R)
      One strength is that the procedure was standardised as they paired the loud noise with the white rat 7 times before testing Albert with the white rat on its own. This is a strength because it means the research can be replicated in the future to check for consistencies in the results of conditioning phobias, increasing the study’s reliability.
    • Strength 2 of Little Albert (W+R)
      One strength is that the study collected qualitative data about the reactions Albert made to the differlent stimuli. This is a strength as it means the data about reactions to feared stimuli are more in depth so we can explain the extent to which a phobia has developed more accurately increasing the validity.
    • Weakness 2 of little Albert (W+R)
      The study is subjective because the researchers observing Albert’s reactions to the animals have to record his responses. For example Albert crawling away is recorded as a fear response but it could be due to boredom. This means the study may be less accurate since the findings about association may be subject to researcher bias, decreasing validity.
    • Watson and Rayners study (little Albert) may be useful because if we learn phobias through association we can unlearn them through practical applications such as flooding therapy. However this may not be useful as people have to agree to the treatment and this causes distress.